News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.4K     0 

Urban Sky said:
Wikipedia lists 31 commuter rail systems in the United States, of which all major metropolitan areas (e.g. NYC, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, SF, LA, DC) have their commuter rail network operated through their own transit agencies. In fact, only 3 routes operated by Amtrak (Capitol Corridor, Keystone Service and Downeaster) appear in that list and especially the classification of the latter is rather debatable...
Click to expand...

My statement might have been a bit too broad. I could see a lot of suburban/exurban routes being in VIA's bailiwick. Niagara, Barrie and Kitchener come to mind. Heck, this is sort of what is emerging on the the current VIA corridor at Belleville, Coburg and Kingston. More to the point though, VIA would probably get more contracts from different provinces to run their commuter or exurban services if it were similar empowered.
 
kEiThZ said:
My statement might have been a bit too broad. I could see a lot of suburban/exurban routes being in VIA's bailiwick. Niagara, Barrie and Kitchener come to mind. Heck, this is sort of what is emerging on the the current VIA corridor at Belleville, Coburg and Kingston. More to the point though, VIA would probably get more contracts from different provinces to run their commuter or exurban services if it were similar empowered.
Click to expand...
I’m increasingly doubtful that there is it is a question (or lack) of legislation which prevents the provinces to give VIA subsidies to make increased service viable, especially after I've been made aware today of this footnote which appeared in the VIA timetables of the early 1990s for what is today's trains 82 and 83 (i.e. the morning train from London to Toronto and its return leaving Toronto at around 5 pm):
1580444154743.png

Source: official VIA Rail timetable (effective 1994-01-01, p.30)

Therefore, I rather think that what stops the provinces (especially the Government of Ontario) from contracting VIA to provide commuter service might have to do with the fact that VIA rail's services are classified as intercity rail and are as such (unless I'm completely mistaken) unable to accept standees, which deprives any intercity operator from the only viable strategy to reduce average costs (i.e. per passenger) to a level where service could be provided to commuters at an acceptable cost-recovery rate (i.e. somewhere around 50%), considering the high capital costs (every additional train operating during the afternoon peak requires one additional trainset, which remains unused for the overwhelming part of the day) and low yield (compare your willingness to pay for a round trip like Kitchener-Toronto if you had to do it once per year versus every working day) such a commuter service entails...
 
Last edited:
^That’s an interesting precedent.

One wonders though how VIA would have reacted had similar requests been made of it over the more recent past. First, would VIA have been in a position to provide the equipment and people for a new service? As you note, those routes might be less productive, and shifting resources from its core lines might represent both a loss of revenue and potentially a conflict of priorities for a fleet that was already stretched. Second, would VIA have been able to reach a deal on its own initiative without bureaucratic “oversight” , ie interference or passive aggressive stall tactics from the government? Ottawa has been averse to anything that smelled like success for rail passenger.....the last thing it would welcome is a province trying to increase VIA’s footprint. At the least, I would have predicted nitpiking from the beancounters over the finances.... a “prove to us that there is full cost recovery” kind of exercise. (Yes, I’m cynical).

Going forward, with the new fleet on the way, and there being options to add to the order should VIA have added needs, the situation is much more favourable for such a deal, if the interest is there. With the existing fleet order only giving VIA seat for seat replacement, there would still be a potential scarcity of equipment, but an add on order is possible within the time limits of VIA’s options. ML has hinted that some kind of cooperation might be in the works.

- Paul
 
Urban Sky said:
I’m increasingly doubtful that there is it is a question (or lack) of legislation which prevents the provinces to give VIA subsidies to make increased service viable, especially after I've been made aware today of this footnote which appeared in the VIA timetables of the early 1990s for what is today's trains 82 and 83 (i.e. the morning train from London to Toronto and its return leaving Toronto at around 5 pm):
View attachment 228318
Source: official VIA Rail timetable (effective 1994-01-01, p.30)

Therefore, I rather think that what stops the provinces (especially the Government of Ontario) from contracting VIA to provide commuter service might have to do with the fact that VIA rail's services are classified as intercity rail and are as such (unless I'm completely mistaken) unable to accept standees, which deprives any intercity operator from the only viable strategy to reduce average costs (i.e. per passenger) to a level where service could be provided to commuters at an acceptable cost-recovery rate (i.e. somewhere around 50%), considering the high capital costs (every additional train operating during the afternoon peak requires one additional trainset, which remains unused for the overwhelming part of the day) and low yield (compare your willingness to pay for a round trip like Kitchener-Toronto if you had to do it once per year versus every working day) such a commuter service entails...
Click to expand...
What would prevent VIA to technically run commuter trains like they were proposing in Halifax then?
 
Urban Sky said:
Therefore, I rather think that what stops the provinces (especially the Government of Ontario) from contracting VIA to provide commuter service might have to do with the fact that VIA rail's services are classified as intercity rail and are as such (unless I'm completely mistaken) unable to accept standees, which deprives any intercity operator from the only viable strategy to reduce average costs (i.e. per passenger) to a level where service could be provided to commuters at an acceptable cost-recovery rate (i.e. somewhere around 50%), considering the high capital costs (every additional train operating during the afternoon peak requires one additional trainset, which remains unused for the overwhelming part of the day) and low yield (compare your willingness to pay for a round trip like Kitchener-Toronto if you had to do it once per year versus every working day) such a commuter service entails...
Click to expand...
I've just been made aware that VIA used to accept Commuter Pass holders as standees until presumably 2014, when the paper coupons (which allowed to hop onto any train they were valid for) were replaced by virtual credits which had to be exchanged online for a boarding pass for a particular train:
Reservations are not accepted. Seats are not guaranteed and Commuter Pass holders agree that they may have to stand if requested by the VIA Rail Service Manager. Standees traveling on VIA Commuter Passes are not entitled to any special compensation or privileges that may normally apply to passengers required to stand.
Click to expand...
https://web.archive.org/web/20060524142510/http://www.viarail.ca/planner/en_cart_banl_cond.html (archived)

I imagine that this inevitably created conflicts on trains without assigned seating, as the Service Manager would have the questionable honour to determine who has to give up his seat, but I wonder if that would still be a problem with assigned seating, as every passenger with a regular ticket would be able himself to locate his seat and to identify who has to vacate it (if a Commuter is sitting on it)...
 
Last edited:
NotAToy said:
I was bored, so I created this map. The details are still down to debate.

Ontario
View attachment 228387
Western Canada
View attachment 228386
Eastern Canada/Quebec
View attachment 228388

Not everything is HSR of HFR. The very required services, I don't know what to do with them. I mean, with something like this, (Daily+ Service) we could actually not wait super long for trains outside of the most "frequent" corridors.
Click to expand...

I can only assume you are drawing a fantasy map, because in the Ontario and the Maritimes, at least, you have made corridors where no rail exists.
 
NotAToy said:
I was bored, so I created this map. The details are still down to debate.

Ontario
View attachment 228387
Western Canada
View attachment 228386
Eastern Canada/Quebec
View attachment 228388

Not everything is HSR of HFR. The very required services, I don't know what to do with them. I mean, with something like this, (Daily+ Service) we could actually not wait super long for trains outside of the most "frequent" corridors.
Click to expand...
Transportation network planning is not about drawing lines onto maps, it's about demonstrating at least some basic understanding of what the consequences would be if someone would actually try to build a network along the lines you drew onto that map...
 
You're right, but this is a forum of interested amateurs, not the VIA boardroom. We love getting your perspective because it's so thoroughly grounded. But a little speculation about some lines on a map can be fun! What do you think the consequences could be? How would you change it?
 
Aylmer said:
You're right, but this is a forum of interested amateurs, not the VIA boardroom. We love getting your perspective because it's so thoroughly grounded. But a little speculation about some lines on a map can be fun! What do you think the consequences could be? How would you change it?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what thoroughly grounded perspective one could possibly gain from a map which shows no less than 3 separate lines drawn between Quebec City and Rivières-de-Loup and 2 lines drawn from Sudbury to Regina via SSM, Thunder Bay and Winnipeg, as the author did not provide any explanations as to what the different colours refer to and how multiple lines linking the same nodes (cities) are to be interpreted: Multiple lines sharing the same infrastructure? Or: different infrastructure levels - existing/former rail corridors, HFR or HSR - to be built in concurrence to each other - or as alternatives?

Therefore, I’m with @lenaitch , who categorized this map in the same way as these London Underground style world maps (they are Fantasy Maps - lines drawn onto maps for the sake of drawing lines onto a map) and for as long as these points are not clarified, there is no point in losing another word about this map in this forum...
 
Last edited:
^I’m for staying on the side of the equation that asks, where would the money come from? Would other approvals (crossing native land. being one, expropriations being another) be achievable ?

If it’s not fundable or doable - it’s a fantasy.

- Paul
 
Does anybody know why train 633 occasionally backs onto the Victoria bridge to turn around when leaving Montreal towards Ottawa? The train always has a locomotive on each end and uses the LRC coaches with the seats facing the center of the car. I thought that the train always turned around on the bridge but today it left the station and immediately went to Dorval without turning around.

Edit:
I realized that the turns on the bridge were with train 33 while the train that left directly is train 633. Both had locomotives on both ends but train 33 has ten more minutes scheduled between Montreal and Dorval.
 
Last edited:
ManyQuestions said:
Does anybody know why train 633 occasionally backs onto the Victoria bridge to turn around when leaving Montreal towards Ottawa? The train always has a locomotive on each end and uses the LRC coaches with the seats facing the center of the car. I thought that the train always turned around on the bridge but today it left the station and immediately went to Dorval without turning around.

Edit:
I realized that the turns on the bridge were with train 33 while the train that left directly is train 633. Both had locomotives on both ends but train 33 has ten more minutes scheduled between Montreal and Dorval.
Click to expand...
Welcome on Urban Toronto and thank you for asking this excellent question! :)

I recall asking this question (why trainsets with one locomotive at either end did not still back out of Gare Centrale whenever they are used for one of the Quebec-Montreal-Ottawa trains) to my colleagues, and even though I don’t remember the answer, I suspect that a reason is that the reservation system doesn’t really support cars changing their orientation (or direction of travel) mid-journey, which would lead to either of the following situations:

  1. The car orientation would be shown wrong for half of the train journey, which I don't think is revealed to the passenger while booking online, but is probably an issue for customers booking over the phone and asking specifically for a forward-facing seat, as the phone agent would now have to identify 1) that the train has two locomotives, 2) that it changes its direction in Montreal, 3) which part of the passengers' journey would be before and which part would be after Montreal and 4) for which part of the passengers' journey the information displayed by the system is correct. This would provide ample of opportunities for human error on the side of the phone agent, which would inevitably lead to frustration on the customer's side. Also, it would force any passenger insisting on sitting forward-facing to book a different seat before or after Montreal.
  2. All cars would be loaded as facing one direction until Montreal and facing the other thereafter. Whereas this would work great with any passenger leaving the train before or in Montreal or boarding in or after Montreal, the system would now treat any passenger travelling through Montreal as a transfer (most probably assigning different seats for both legs, as it doesn't understand that it's the same car), which could of course be corrected directly by the phone agent when booking over the phone, but will result in two different boarding passes (with probably two different seats, potentially even in different cars) when booking online.
As you can see, neither situation would be desirable and I suspect that this is the reason why the entire train is turned in Montreal, even though the train would be perfectly capable of operating bidirectionally...

I hope this answered this (very first) question of yours and I'm looking forward to you making your nick name all honors... ;)
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top